codecov[bot]
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Merging #49 (237f6bb) into main (c2941f9) will decrease coverage by
1.2%. The diff coverage is54.7%.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #49 +/- ##
=======================================
- Coverage 64.6% 63.4% -1.3%
=======================================
Files 15 18 +3
Lines 555 637 +82
=======================================
+ Hits 359 404 +45
- Misses 196 233 +37 | Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| src/pudl_scrapers/spiders/ferc2.py | 39.3% <39.3%> (ø) |
|
| src/pudl_scrapers/spiders/ferc6.py | 56.5% <56.5%> (ø) |
|
| src/pudl_scrapers/spiders/ferc60.py | 56.5% <56.5%> (ø) |
|
| src/pudl_scrapers/items.py | 76.0% <76.9%> (+0.3%) |
:arrow_up: |
| src/pudl_scrapers/spiders/ferc1.py | 73.9% <100.0%> (+10.2%) |
:arrow_up: |
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
Since I've been poking around in the scrapers and it's fresh in my mind, I went ahead and created scrapers for all the old Visual FoxPro DBF databases.
I simplified the FERC 1 scraper to only download all the years, rather than allowing one year at a time, and used that pattern for all of the other scrapers as well.
I didn't add tests for all of these basically identical scrapers. Looking at the FERC 1 tests they seemed kind of perfunctory. I'm not sure what the right kinds of tests are for these things... I guess we want to make sure that they actually get all of the available files, and that they keep working with the data out there in the real world. Is that an integration test we should implement? Or is it the nature of the scrapers that we should just be running them for real on a regular basis, and when that usage breaks, we fix it?
Closes #41